Improvement Plan - Poudre School District

Transcription

Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Districts for 2013-14
Organization Code: 1550
District Name: POUDRE R-1
AU Code: 35010
AU Name: LARIMER R-1 POUDRE
DPF Year: 1 Year
Section I: Summary Information about the District/Consortium
Directions: This section summarizes your district/consortium’s performance on the federal and state accountability measures in 2012-13. In the table below, CDE has pre-populated the district/consortium’s data in blue
text. This data shows the district/consortium’s performance in meeting minimum federal and state accountability expectations. Most of the data are pulled from the official District Performance Framework (DPF). This
summary should accompany your improvement plan.
Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability
Performance
Indicators
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
2012-13 Federal and State
Expectations
Measures/ Metrics
TCAP/CSAP, CoAlt/CSAPA, Lectura, Escritura
Description: % Proficient and Advanced (%P+A) in
reading, writing, math and science
Expectation: %P+A is above the 50th percentile (from
2009-10 baseline) by using 1-year or 3-years of data
Elem
MS
HS
Elem
MS
HS
R
71.51%
70.50%
71.53%
81.68%
80.14%
78.19%
M
70.51%
50.00%
32.16%
80.84%
71.57%
49.95%
W
54.72%
56.36%
48.61%
67.72%
68.99%
66.32%
S
48.00%
45.60%
48.93%
62.8%
66.02%
66.3%
Median Adequate Growth Percentile
(AGP)
Median Growth Percentile
Academic Growth
Description: Growth in TCAP/CSAP for reading,
writing and math and growth on ACCESS/CELApro for
English language proficiency.
Expectation: If district met adequate growth, MGP is at
or above 45.
If district did not meet adequate growth, MGP is at or
above 55.
For English language proficiency growth, there is no
adequate growth for 2012-13. The expectation is an
MGP at or above 50.
2012-13 District Results
Meets Expectations?
Overall Rating for
Academic Achievement:
Meets
* Consult your District Performance
Framework for the ratings for each
content area at each level.
Median Growth Percentile (MGP)
Elem
MS
HS
Elem
MS
HS
R
23
17
5
57
50
47
M
38
48
54
58
55
51
W
35
31
22
58
47
50
ELP
-
-
-
42
47
49
Overall Rating for
Academic Growth:
Meets
Framework for the ratings for each
content area at each level.
1
Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability (cont.)
Performance
Indicators
Measures/ Metrics
Median Growth Percentile
Academic Growth
Gaps
Description: Growth for reading, writing and math
by disaggregated groups.
Expectation: If disaggregated groups met adequate
growth, MGP is at or above 45.
If disaggregated groups did not meet adequate
growth, MGP is at or above 55.
Graduation Rate
Expectation: At 80% or above on the best of 4year, 5-year, 6-year or 7-year graduation rate.
Disaggregated Graduation Rate
Postsecondary &
Workforce
Readiness
Expectation: At 80% or above on the
disaggregated group’s best of 4-year, 5-year, 6-year
or 7-year graduation rate.
Dropout Rate
Expectation: At or below state average overall.
Mean Colorado ACT Composite Score
Expectation: At or above state average.
2012-13 Federal and State
Expectations
See your District Performance Framework
for listing of median adequate growth
expectations for your district’s
disaggregated groups, including
free/reduced lunch eligible, minority
students, students with disabilities, English
Language Learners (ELLs) and students
below proficient.
At 80% or above
2012-13 District Results
for listing of median growth by each
disaggregated group.
Best of 4-year through 7- year Grad Rate
87.6% using a 5 year grad rate
Meets Expectations?
Overall Rating for Growth Gaps:
Approaching
Framework for the ratings for each student
disaggregated group at each content area at
each level.
Meets
At 80% or above for each
disaggregated group
for listing of 4-year, 5-year, 6-year and 7year graduation rates for disaggregated
groups, including free/reduced lunch
eligible, minority students, students with
disabilities, and ELLs.
Approaching
3.6%
1.4%
Meets
20
22.3
Exceeds
Overall Rating
for
Postsecondary
& Workforce
Readiness:
Meets
2
Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability (cont.)
Performance
Indicators
Measures/ Metrics
AMAO 1
Description: TBD – Pending approval from USDE
AMAO 2
English
Language
Development
and Attainment
2012-13 Grantee
Results
Meets Expectations?
TBD – Pending approval from USDE
Approaching
NO
TBD – Pending approval from USDE
14.83%
YES
2012-13 Federal and State Expectations
Description: TBD – Pending approval from USDE
AMAO 3
Description: Academic Growth Gaps content subindicator ratings (median and adequate growth
percentiles in reading, mathematics, and writing) for
ELLs; Disaggregated Graduation Rate sub-indicator for
ELLs; and Participation Rates for ELLs.
(1) Meets or Exceeds ratings on Academic
Growth Gaps content sub-indicators for
ELLs, (2) Meets or Exceeds rating on
Disaggregated Graduation Rate subindicator for ELLs and (3) 95% Participation
Rate for ELLs.
R
Meets
W
Meets
M
Meets
Grad
Approaching
Participation
Meets Expectations
YES
Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan
Summary of District Plan
Timeline
October 15, 2013
The district has the option to submit the updated 2013-14 plan through Tracker for public posting on SchoolView.org.
January 15, 2014
The district has the option to submit the updated 2013-14 plan through Tracker for public posting on SchoolView.org.
April 15, 2014
The UIP is due to CDE for public posting on April 15, 2014 through Tracker. Some program level reviews will occur at this same time. For
required elements in the improvement plan, go to the Quality Criteria at:
http://www.cde.state.co.us/uip/UIP_TrainingAndSupport_Resources.asp.
3
Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan (cont.)
Program
Identification Process
Identification for District
Directions for Completing Improvement Plan
State Accountability and Grant Programs
Plan Type for State
Accreditation
Plan type is assigned based on the district’s overall
District Performance Framework score
(achievement, growth, growth gaps, postsecondary
and workforce readiness) and meeting
requirements for finance, safety, participation and
test administration.
Accredited
Based on District Performance Framework results, the district meets or exceeds
state expectations for attainment on the performance indicators and is required
to adopt and implement a Performance Plan. The plan must be submitted to
CDE by April 15, 2014 to be posted on SchoolView.org. Note that other
programs may require a review at the same time.
School(s) on Accountability
Clock
At least one school in the district has a Priority
Improvement or Turnaround plan type – meaning
that the school is on the accountability clock.
Number of
Schools on Clock: 1
Districts are encouraged to include information on how schools on the
accountability clock are receiving additional intensive support aimed at
dramatically increasing results for students. This will be a required element in
2014-15. Note: the number displayed does not include any AEC schools within
the district with Pending AEC School Performance Frameworks or any schools
with Insufficient State Data.
Student Graduation and
Completion Plan (Designated
Graduation District)
In one or more of the four prior school years, the
district (1) had an overall Postsecondary and
Workforce Readiness rating of “Does Not Meet” or
“Approaching” on the District Performance
Framework and (2) had an on-time graduation rate
below 59.5% or an annual dropout rate at least two
times greater than the statewide dropout rate for
that year.
No, district does not need to
complete a Student
Graduation Completion Plan.
The district does not need to complete the additional requirements for a Student
Graduation Completion Plan.
Gifted Education
All districts are expected to provide services to
Gifted students. Some districts belong to a multidistrict AU (including BOCES) that may develop
plans together or separately.
Single-district AU operating
the Gifted Program.
The district must complete the required Gifted Education addendum, budget, and
signature pages. Note that specialized requirements for Gifted Education
Programs are included for all LEAs in the District Quality Criteria document. The
state expectations for Gifted Education Programs are posted on the CDE
website at: http://www.cde.state.co.us/gt/director.
4
Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan (cont.)
Program
Identification Process
Identification for District
Directions for Completing Improvement Plan
Title IA
Title IA funded Districts with a Priority Improvement
or Turnaround plan type assignment.
No, district does not have
specific Title I requirements in
the UIP.
The district does not need to complete the additional Title I requirements.
Title IIA
Title IIA funded Districts with a Priority
Improvement or Turnaround plan type assignment.
No, district does not have
specific Title IIA requirements
in the UIP.
The district does not need to complete the additional Title IIA requirements.
ESEA and Grant Accountability
Program Improvement under
Title III
District/Consortium missed AMAOs for two or more
consecutive years.
Yes
Based upon results for Title III, the grantee must complete the required
addendum for Title III Improvement. The ESEA addendum is not required. Since
the plan must be submitted for posting to SchoolView.org on April 15, 2014, Title
III requirements and the required Title III addendum will be reviewed by CDE at
the same time. Note that specialized requirements are included for Title III in the
Quality Criteria document.
District with an Identified
Focus School and/or School
with a Tiered Intervention
Grant (TIG)
District has at least one school that (1) has been
identified as a Title I Focus School and/or (2) has a
current TIG award.
No, district does not have any
schools identified as a Title I
Focus School or have a
current TIG award.
The district does not need to meet additional requirements.
5
Section II: Improvement Plan Information
Additional Information about the District
Comprehensive Review and Selected Grant History
Related Grant
Awards
Has the district received a grant that supports the district’s
improvement efforts? When was the grant awarded?
Yes, CDE Race to the Top Funds 2011-2014
CDE Multi-Tiered System of Supports
Implementation Grant 2012-2013
CADI
Has (or will) the district participated in a CADI review? If
so, when?
Yes, 2010
External Evaluator
Has the district(s) partnered with an external evaluator to
provide comprehensive evaluation? Indicate the year and
the name of the provider/tool used.
No
Improvement Plan Information
The district/consortium is submitting this improvement plan to satisfy requirements for (check all that apply):
 State Accreditation  Student Graduation and Completion Plan (Designated Graduation District)
 Title IA
 Title IIA
Title III
Gifted Education
 Other: ______________________________________________________________________________
For districts with less than 1,000 students: This plan is satisfying improvement plan requirements for:  District Only  District and School Level Plans (combined
plan). If schools are included in this plan, attach their pre-populated reports and provide the names of the schools: ______________________________________________
District/Consortium Contact Information (Additional contacts may be added, if needed)
1
2
Name and Title
Mr. Robert Beauchamp, Director of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment
Email
[email protected]
Phone
(970) 490-3667
Mailing Address
2407 LaPorte Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80521
Name and Title
Cassandra Turner, DAC Co-Chairperson
Email
[email protected]
Phone
Mailing Address
6
Section III: Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification
This section corresponds with the “Evaluate” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. The main outcome is to construct a narrative that describes
the process and results of the analysis of the data for your district. The analysis should justify the performance targets and actions proposed in
Section IV. Two worksheets have been provided to help organize your data analysis for your narrative. This analysis section includes:
identifying where the district/consortium did not at least meet minimum state and federal accountability expectations; describing progress
toward targets for the prior school year; describing what performance data were used in the analysis of trends; identifying trends and priority
performance challenges (negative trends); describing how performance challenges were prioritized; identifying the root causes of performance
challenges; describing how the root causes were identified and verified and what data were used; and describing stakeholder involvement in the
analysis. Additional guidance on how to engage in the data analysis process is provided in the Unified Improvement Planning Handbook.
Data Narrative for District/Consortium
Directions: In the narrative, describe the process and results of the data analysis for the district/consortium, including (1) a description of the district and the process for data
analysis, (2) a review of current performance, (3) trend analysis, (4) priority performance challenges and (5) root cause analysis. A description of the expected narrative sections are
included below. The narrative should not take more than five pages. Two worksheets (#1 Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets and #2 Data Analysis) have been provided to
organize the data referenced in the narrative.
Data Narrative for District/Consortium
Description of District(s)
Setting and Process for
Data Analysis: Provide a
very brief description of the
district(s) to set the context
for readers (e.g.,
demographics). Include the
general process for
developing the UIP and
participants (e.g., DAC).
Review Current Performance:
Review the DPF and local data.
Document any areas where the
district(s) did not at least meet
state/ federal expectations.
Consider the previous year’s
progress toward the district’s
targets. Identify the overall
magnitude of the district’s
performance challenges.
Trend Analysis: Provide a description
of the trend analysis that includes at
least three years of data (state and local
data). Trend statements should be
provided in the four performance
indicator areas and by disaggregated
groups. Trend statements should
include the direction of the trend and a
comparison (e.g., state expectations,
state average) to indicate why the trend
is notable.
Priority Performance
Challenges: Identify notable
trends (or a combination of trends)
that are the highest priority to
address (priority performance
challenges). No more than 3-5 are
recommended. Provide a
rationale for why these challenges
have been selected and address
the magnitude of the district’s
overall performance challenges.
Root Cause Analysis: Identify at least
one root cause for every priority
performance challenge. Root causes
should address adult actions, be under the
control of the district, and address the
priority performance challenge(s). Provide
evidence that the root cause was verified
through the use of additional data. A
description of the selection process for the
corresponding major improvement
strategies is encouraged.
Narrative:
The Poudre School District (PSD) is the tenth largest district in Colorado and is a high-achieving school district. However, there are opportunities for improvement. Included in the
generally high scores are some areas of performance that fall below expectations. The PSD mission is to Educate Every Child Every Day. PSD is proud of the rich and diverse
environment in which students learn. As PSD becomes more diverse, it is critical to examine and respond to achievement differences and growth gaps among various student
populations.
Process to Determine Needs
The Student Achievement Cadre, comprised of administrators from Curriculum, Integrated Services, Federal Programs, English Language Acquisition, Student Services,
Assessment, Research, Professional Development, along with the teacher induction, and grants coordinators, works in partnership with the District Accountability Committee
(DAC) to review the data in the district performance framework and create the Unified Improvement Plan.
7
Trend Analysis
Poudre School District’s TCAP and ACT performance have been stable and high in the past three years. Overall scores are well above state averages with TCAP performance
district percentile ranks ranging from 73rd to 94th on the one-year District Performance Framework (DPF).
Third grade reading proficiency is one of the district’s goals (DE 1.0). Although PSD has met the state expectations in academic achievement in reading, we have consistently not
met the our 3rd grade reading goal of 85% and the DRA2 goal of 80% of students at each grade level meeting the set benchmarks.
DRA2
Kindergarten
1st Grade
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
2011
86.9%
74.2%
74.3%
74.2%
2012
88%
76.3%
70.5%
73.8%
2013
86.3%
74.8%
77.7%
76.6%
3rd Grade Reading
PSD
State
2011
83.9%
72.9%
2012
82.3%
73.9%
2013
83.9%
73.3%
On postsecondary measures, PSD demonstrates stable performance, with graduation and dropout rates outperforming state averages. The 2013 ACT Composite average for the
district is 22.3, which exceeds the state expectation.
On the one-year DPF, Academic Growth “meets” state expectations at all levels – except high school mathematics. Overall, PSD has a rating of “meets” for academic growth.
PSD did not meet the state expectation of the English Language Proficiency (ACCESS) growth indicator at all levels.
Although the district made progress in the Academic Growth Gaps performance indicator, PSD falls short of meeting state expectations, earning 60.6% of the points possible on
the framework. At the elementary level, the district earned 75% of possible points, which is a 20% increase from 2012. The elementary level met expectations in all three content
areas. Median Growth Percentiles for academic subgroups range from 42 (students with disabilities-reading) to 64 (ELL in math)
Middle school growth by academic subgroup has a rating of “approaching” in reading, math and writing, with the district earning 53.3% of the possible points for growth by
academic subgroups. This is an increase of 1.6% from 2012. Median Growth Percentiles range from 42 (Students that are free/reduced lunch eligible- writing) to 52 (English
learners – reading, and Students Needing to Catch Up-Math).
High school growth by academic subgroup has a rating of “approaching” in reading, math and writing, with the district earning 53.3% of possible points for growth by academic
subgroups, resulting in an overall “approaching” rating. This is an increase of 1.6% from 2012. Median Growth Percentiles range from 38 (Students w/Disabilities-reading) to 53
(English Language Learners – reading, and students needing to catch up – math and writing).
Performance Challenges
Students with Disabilities:
Access to General Education
District data indicates that 60.1% of students with disabilities have access to general education 80% or more of the time. The PSD average of 60.1% is below the state average
of 71.3%. The percentage of high school students with disabilities in general education setting is 43%; middle school 61%; and elementary school 69%.
8
To support increased access to general education settings for students with disabilities, IEP teams first consider general education settings with accommodations and
modifications to establish the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). LRE alone will not change student achievement. Collaboration and co-planning between general and
integrated services must occur along with aligned instruction between the two.
PSD implements annual program evaluations in integrated services to align instruction with the Colorado Academic Standards and to increase the use of research-based best
practices. Evaluations are completed for programs that serve students with emotional disabilities, autism, and multiple needs. Program evaluations are in process for multicategorical literacy programming, deaf and hard of hearing programs, and vision programs.
System-wide Processes and Aligned Expectations
In an effort to develop and share system-wide processes, district leadership participates in embedded professional development (PD) using a Learning Walk protocol to identify
and define common language and procedures for improving instruction. By the end of the 2013-2014 school year, District Leadership and school teams from every building will
have completed the Standards-based Teaching and Learning Framework training. Professional Development includes facilitated teacher workgroups and technology integration
trainings to plan instruction and implement the Colorado Academic Standards.
The district continues to incorporate instructional coaching with the ELA department, Title IA, Title IIA, Title III, and Integrated Services. The district plans to continue the coaching
model informed by the program evaluation conducted in 2011 and 2012, as funding is available from Title IA, IIA, III, Mill Levy monies, and Integrated Services. The district
coordinates coaches through ongoing training and centralized efforts to document effectiveness. The district also funds Response to Intervention (RtI) consultants for both
academics and behavior to support the effective implementation of RtI. Additionally, PSD provides multiple training opportunities for teachers who serve gifted and talented
students to support the development of Advanced Learning Plans (ALPs), as well as to meet the learning needs of advanced learners in elementary and secondary schools.
Title I and Title III programs use research-based strategies to improve achievement and enhance language development for students at risk of not meeting academic standards in
mathematics and literacy. Staff will continue this process through Professional Learning Community (PLC) discussions about research pertaining to literacy and mathematics,
structured peer observations, and consensus regarding elements of effective instruction.
Major Improvement Strategies
The data regarding the academic gaps among several of our student sub-groups, meeting the 3rd grade reading benchmarks, and the lack of district-wide academic processes
and aligned expectations have informed the major improvement strategies contained in this district plan.
Major Improvement Strategy #1:
Implement the PSD Standards-Based Teaching & Learning Framework district-wide in all content areas, preK-12, to promote a learning system with aligned expectations for
instructional practice, professional development, and educator effectiveness.
Implement multi-tiered system of supports, district-wide, to address adequate growth needs of students who are currently below grade level.
Establish a PreK-3 literacy system to serve as a foundation to strengthen effective delivery of standards-based, balanced literacy instruction.
Contained within each of these strategies are plans to continue our work in promoting effective parent participation in the PSD educational community.
Strategies to Promote Effective Parental Involvement
More than 65 building level coordinators in the district direct recruitment, placement and recognition of more than 16,000 volunteers under the direction of the Partnership and
9
Volunteer Program. Parents are represented on School Accountability Committees; Community Advisory Boards; and district committees such as the District Advisory Board, the
District Accountability Committee; Technology Advisory Committee and the Mill Bond Committee.
Classes and workshops are available to parents in PSD. Headsets that allow for simultaneous translations are available for check- out to schools for parent events.
Opportunities for parents include an ESL Parent Involvement course offered in schools based on parent input. Family Literacy Nights with book distributions and reading
strategies, Math Nights teach parents how to use math games with materials that increase language interaction and learning that parents can practice with their children. Parents
have asked for strategies to help support their children at home; Title I schools supply this support by providing parent education workshops. PSD parents also have access to
parenting classes, computer classes, ESL classes, and other courses through community partnerships.
All parental involvement activities demonstrate coordination and collaboration between Title IA and Title III programs. The Community Parent Advisory Council (CPAC) consists of
parents from Title I schools and ELA program schools. A CPAC member also serves on the District Accountability Committee. Parent conferences are held a minimum of twice a
year at all grade levels. Parents can access to up-to-date information on their child’s progress through the ParentVUE on-line student information system. Ongoing
communication takes place in both English and Spanish through newsletters, phone calls, websites, and emails as needed. School newsletters contain information and
suggestions for parents regarding how to support their child’s education. Automated Spanish and English phone systems are utilized to notify parents of upcoming events or
attendance issues.
Title III Set Aside funding has enhanced parent outreach and communication with the addition of Cultural Mediators for Arabic and Latino families. In 2012, cultural mediators
serve schools based on immigrant population distribution. Tutors who speak Mandarin Chinese and Vietnamese are hired on an hourly basis to assist newcomer students who
benefit from first language explanations as they learn English. Language services in other languages are available as needed. This project includes parent surveys and focus
groups to further assess the needs of diverse families and students.
Spanish-speaking family liaisons are housed at sites with a large number of Spanish-speaking students and families. The liaisons provide oral and written communication in
Spanish at the school sites and during home visits. Also, the Integrated Services, ELA, Title I and Early Childhood programs employ family liaisons.
The Integrated Services Advisory Committee is comprised of parents, community members, PSD staff, and administrators. This committee meets monthly to discuss the needs of
PSD students with disabilities. Parent Academy, which includes classes for parents, meets twice per year to help parents understand integrated services processes and support
student learning.
Poudre School District will serve students by providing additional small group reading and math interventions with a Targeted Assistance Program in one public, Title I elementary
school (Harris Bilingual). School wide Title I programs are driven by the school plans at Irish, Putnam, Laurel and Bauder Elementary Schools.
Students are selected to participate in specialized programs through a body of evidence that must include a minimum of two data points from the following assessments:
• DRA2 overall level and scores on subtests
• NWEA Measures of Academic Progress in Reading and Math
• 3rd and 4th grade TCAP scores for 4th and 5th graders
• ACCESS/W-APT scores for English Language Learners
• Grade level benchmark scores on common assessments
• Teacher judgment rankings based on other measures of learning
10
Interventionists for students in kindergarten through 3rd grade rank students scoring from the “very low” to “low” to determine participation of those most at risk of not making
academic achievement standards.
PSD also implements assessments to meet McKinney-Vento requirements for identifying students who are homeless and may need extra support and stability. Strategies and
materials are based on best practices for small group guided reading with direct instruction (Fountas and Pinnell).
Brief Glossary of Acronyms and Terms:
ACCESS
ACT
AGP
ALP
AMAO
CAS
CELP
CoGAT
CPAC
DE 1.0
DRA2
DPF
ECE
ELA
ELL
EXCEED
IEP
IS
LRE
MAP
MTSS
NWEA
Median
MGP
Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners
The version of the ACT college entrance exam administered to all high school juniors in Colorado as part of the State student assessment program.
Adequate Growth Percentile
Advanced Learning Plan
Annual Measurable Achievement Objective
Colorado Academic Standards
Colorado English Language Proficiency Standards
Cognitive Abilities Test for Gifted and Talented identification
Community Parent Advisory Committee for English Learners
District Ends Policy outlining major district goals
Developmental Reading Assessment 2nd Edition
District Performance Frameworks-Accountability reports for districts prepared by the State.
Early Childhood Education
English Language Acquisition
English Language Learners
The computer program used in PSD to collect data for students receiving interventions
Individualized Education Plan
Integrated Services - Refers to Special Education in PSD.
Least Restrictive Environment
Measure of Academic Progress
Multi-Tiered System of Supports
Northwest Evaluation Association
The median is the middle score in a rank-ordered list of scores.
Median Growth Percentile. The metric for the typical growth percentile rank for schools and districts. For any group, the MGP is the “middle” student percentile
rank in a rank-ordered list of student scores.
PD
Professional Development
Percentile Rank Metric used by the Colorado Growth Model to compare the performance of one student, school, or
district to a larger comparison group. A percentile rank of 75 means that the student, school, or
district performed as well or better than 75% of all members in the comparison group. Percentile
Ranks range from 1-99.
PLC
Professional Learning Community
PSD
Poudre School District
11
RtI
SBTLF
TCAP
Response to Intervention
Standards-Based Teaching and Learning Framework
Transitional Colorado Assessment Program. Tests of State Model Content/Academic Standards in Reading, Writing and Math at grades 3-10 and Science at
grades 5, 8, and 10.
12
Worksheet #1: Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets
Directions: This chart supports analysis of progress made towards performance targets set for the 2012-13 school year (last year’s plan). While this worksheet should be included in your UIP, the
main intent is to record your district/consortium’s reflections to help build your data narrative.
Performance Indicators
Academic Achievement
(Status)
Academic Growth
Academic Growth Gaps
Postsecondary &
Workforce Readiness
Targets for 2012-13 school year
(Targets set in last year’s plan)
Performance in 2012-13? Was the target met? How close was the district
to meeting the target?
n/a
n/a
Reading:
High School: MGP 50
MGP 47
No, Missed target by 3 points
Math:
Middle School: MGP 58
High School: MGP 55
MGP 55
MGP 51
Writing:
High School: MGP 50
MGP 50
Yes, met target
Reading: Integrated services
(SPED)
High School: MGP 50
MGP 48
MGP 38
No, missed target by 2 points
Math: Catch up
Elementary: MGP 55
High School: MGP 50
MGP 56
MGP 52
MGP 53
Yes, exceeded target by 1 points
Yes, exceeded target by 3 points
Writing: Minority students
High School: MGP 50
MGP 44
MGP 48
n/a
n/a
n/a
Brief reflection on why previous targets
were
met or not met.
PSD’s Multi-Tiered System of
Supports (MTSS) includes many
variations across the school sites.
Some of the school level MTSS are
not supporting adequate growth for
students currently testing below grade
level expectations.
Students with disabilities are not
consistently provided access to
rigorous standards- based instruction
in core content areas with additional
research-based specialized instruction
aligned with individual student needs.
Inconsistent implementation of
effective scaffolds, differentiation
strategies, and modifications specific
to individual student needs.
n/a
13
Completion Plan
Performance in 2012-13? Was the target met? How close was the district
to meeting the target?
Brief reflection on why previous targets
were
met or not met.
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Targets for 2012-13 school year
(Targets set in last year’s plan)
(For Designated Graduation
Districts)
English Language
Development and
Attainment (AMAOs)
14
Worksheet #2: Data Analysis
Directions: This chart supports planning teams in recording and organizing observations about district-level data in preparation for writing the required data narrative. Planning teams
should describe positive and negative trends for all of the four performance indicators using at least three years of data and then prioritize the performance challenges (based on notable trends) that
the district/consortium will focus its efforts on improving. The root cause analysis and improvement planning efforts in the remainder of the plan should be aimed at addressing the identified priority
performance challenge(s). A limited number of priority performance challenges is recommended (no more than 3-5); a performance challenge may apply to multiple performance indicators. At a
minimum, priority performance challenges must be identified in any of the four performance indicator areas where minimum state and federal expectations were not met for accountability purposes.
Furthermore, districts/consortia are encouraged to consider observations recorded in the “last year’s targets” worksheet. Finally, provide a brief description of the root cause analysis for any priority
performance challenges. Root causes may apply to multiple priority performance challenges. You may add rows, as needed.
Description of Notable Trends
(3 years of past state and local data)
Challenges
Percent of students Proficient or Advanced in all
TCAP content areas are consistently well above n/a
State averages and thus meet State expectations
on the District Performance Frameworks (DPF).
Root Causes
n/a
Elementary
% PA
Reading
Math
Writing
Science
Academic Achievement
(Status)
PSD 2011
81
79
68
62
PSD 2012
81
78
65
63
PSD 2013
82
81
68
63
PSD 2011
80
72
71
62
PSD 2012
81
70
72
65
PSD 2013
80
72
69
66
PSD 2011
76
46
64
63
PSD 2012
78
47
65
67
PSD 2013
78
50
66
66
Middle School
% PA
Reading
Math
Writing
Science
High School
% PA
Reading
Math
Writing
Science
Academic Growth
The district met the state expectation for
Academic Growth for the past three years.
n/a
n/a
15
Challenges
Root Causes
Elementary
TCAP MGP
Reading
Math
Writing
2011
54
55
57
2012
54
52
54
2013
57
58
58
Middle School
TCAP MGP
2011
2012
2013
Reading
54
54
50
Math
55
52
55
Writing
57
54
47
High School
TCAP MGP
2011
2012
2013
Reading
Math
50
49
49
45
47
51
Writing
52
48
50
Students with Disabilities (Integrated services)
TCAP MGP
Academic Growth Gaps
2011
2012
2013
Reading
46
43
44
Math
42
37
46
Writing
43
38
46
Over the past three
years, the median
growth percentile for
students with
disabilities is less than
the state expectation
of 55.
The overall three-year trend for Students with
Disabilities indicates an improvement from 2011 to
2013. These outcomes still fall short of State and
PSD expectations.
Students Needing to Catch Up
2011
Students with disabilities are not consistently provided access to
rigorous standards- based instruction in core content areas with
additional research-based specialized instruction aligned with
individual student needs.
There is inconsistent implementation among staff of researchbased instructional strategies and academic content knowledge for
teaching students with disabilities.
Targeted professional development in strategies for grade level
content instructional scaffolding (the provision of sufficient support
to promote learning when concepts and skills are first introduced to
students) for integrated services students is inconsistent across
schools and levels.
Over the past three
years, the median
PSD’s Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) includes
many variations across the school sites. Some of the school
16
Challenges
Root Causes
students needing to
catch-up is less than
of 55.
level MTSS are not supporting adequate growth for students
currently testing below grade level expectations.
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
TCAP MGP
Reading
Math
Writing
Elementary
School
53
48
53
Middle
School
53
55
52
High
School
49
48
49
Elementary
School
54
47
51
Middle
School
48
51
50
High
School
45
45
43
Elementary
School
54
56
59
Middle
School
48
52
46
High
School
42
53
53
2012
TCAP MGP
Reading
Math
Writing
2013
TCAP MGP
Reading
Math
Writing
Elementary school growth increased from 2012 to
2013 in all three subject areas.
Middle school growth increased in math and
decreased in writing from 2012 to 2013.
High school growth decreased in reading and
increased in math and writing from 2012 to 2013.
Postsecondary & Workforce
Readiness
Completion Plan
(For Designated Graduation Districts)
17
AMAO 1: CELApro Growth
MGP
AGP
Elementary
42
Middle
47
High
49
-
Rating
Approaching
Approaching
Approaching
Challenges
The district did not
meet the growth target
of AMAO 1.
Root Causes
PSD is inconsistent in ensuring that students who are
English Language Learners have access to rigorous,
standards based English Language instruction.
AMAO 2: CELApro proficiency
14.83% of students meet AMAO expectations for
attaining English proficiency on CELA, thus
meeting the 11% target set by state.
English Language
Development and Attainment
(AMAOs)
AMAO 3: TCAP growth and graduation rate for ELL
Middle
High
Grad
rate
MGP
AGP
Writing
43
60
Approaching
Math
49
75
Approaching
Writing
51
70
Approaching
Math
51
94
Approaching
78.1%
Rating
Approaching
18
Section IV: Action Plan(s)
This section addresses the “Plan” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. First, identify annual performance targets and the interim measures.
This will be documented in the required District/Consortium Target Setting Form on the next page. Then move into action planning, which should
be captured in the Action Planning Form.
District/Consortium Target Setting Form
Directions: Complete the worksheet below. While districts/consortia may set targets for all performance indicators, at a minimum, they must set targets for
those priority performance challenges identified in Section III (e.g., by disaggregated student groups, grade levels, subject areas).
Districts are expected to set their own annual targets for academic achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps, and postsecondary and workforce
readiness. At a minimum, districts should set targets for each of the performance indicators where state expectations are not met; targets should also be connected
to prioritized performance challenges. Consider last year’s targets (see Worksheet #1) and whether adjustments need to be made. For each annual performance target,
identify interim measures that will be used to monitor progress toward the annual targets at least quarterly during the school year.
19
District/Consortium Target Setting Form
Performance
Indicators
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
Academic
Growth
Measures/ Metrics
TCAP/CSAP,
CoAlt/CSAPA,
Lectura,
Escritura
Median
Growth
Percentile
(TCAP/CSAP
& ACCESS)
Annual Performance Targets
Challenges
2013-14
Interim Measures for
2013-14
2014-15
Major Improvement
Strategy
R
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
M
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
W
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
S
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
R
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
M
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
W
n/a
The district did not
meet the AMAO 1
target.
n/a
MGP 50
n/a
MGP 55
n/a
n/a
ELP
Implement the PSD
Standards-Based
Teaching & Learning
Framework district-wide in
all content areas, preK-12,
to promote a learning
system with aligned
expectations for
instructional practice,
professional development,
and Educator
Effectiveness.
Ensure consistent
implementation of PSD’s
multi-tiered system of
supports across all
schools with clearly
defined processes and
procedures to address
adequate growth needs of
students who are currently
below grade level.
20
Establish a PreK-3
literacy system to
serve as a foundation
to strengthen effective
delivery of standardsbased, balanced
literacy instruction.
R
Academic
Growth Gaps
Median
Growth
Percentile
M
Over the past three
years, the median
students with
disabilities and
students needing to
catch up falls below
of 55, where adequate
growth was not met.
Over the past three
years, the median
students with
disabilities, ELL
(M/H) and students
needing to catch-up
falls below the state
expectation of 55,
where adequate
growth was not met.
Students
w/Disabilities
Students
w/Disabilities
Students Needing to
Catch Up
Students Needing to
Catch Up
Elementary MGP = 45
Middle School MGP = 50
High School MGP=45
Elementary MGP = 55
High School MGP = 45
Over the past three
years, the median
Elementary MGP = 55
High School MGP= 50
Students
w/Disabilities
Students
w/Disabilities
Students Needing to
Catch Up
Students Needing to
Catch Up
Elementary MGP = 50
High School MGP= 50
High School MGP= 55
Elementary MGP = 50
High School MGP= 50
High School MGP= 55
Organize and coordinate
PSD’s multi-tiered system
Curriculum Based Measures
of supports with clearly
to Monitor Student Progress:
defined processes and
procedures to address
AIMs Web
adequate growth needs of
MBSP
students who are currently
Easy CBM
below grade level.
Teacher Created Rubrics
Anecdotal Records
* (Where Implemented -
ELL
ELL
Frequency Based on
Student Needs)
Students
w/Disabilities
Students
w/Disabilities
Curriculum Based Measures
to Monitor Student Progress:
High School MGP= 55
W
Elementary MGP = 45
High School MGP=45
Implement the PSD
Curriculum Based Measures Standards-Based
to Monitor Student Progress: Teaching & Learning
Framework district-wide in
AIMs Web
all content areas, preK-12,
DIBELs Next
to promote a learning
Easy CBM
system with aligned
expectations for
Anecdotal Records
instructional practice,
professional development,
* (Where Implemented and educator
Frequency Based on
effectiveness.
Student Needs)
High School MGP= 55
Establish a preK-3
literacy system to
serve as a foundation
to strengthen effective
delivery of standardsbased, balanced
literacy instruction.
21
students with
disabilities, ELL and
students needing to
catch-up falls below
of 55, where adequate
growth was not met.
Elementary MGP = 45
Elementary MGP = 45
High School MGP= 45
High School MGP= 45
Students Needing to
Catch Up
Students Needing to
Catch Up
Elementary MGP = 55
High School MGP= 50
English
Language
Development
& Attainment
Elementary MGP = 55
High School MGP= 55
ELL
ELL
Elementary MGP = 55
High School MGP= 45
Postsecondary
& Workforce
Readiness
AIMs Web
Easy CBM
Anecdotal Records
* (Where Implemented -
Frequency Based on
Student Needs)
Elementary MGP = 55
High School MGP= 50
Graduation Rate
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Disaggregated Grad
Rate
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Dropout Rate
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Mean CO ACT
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
The district did not meet
AMAO 1.
Elementary MGP = 50
Elementary MGP = 55
ACCESS Growth
(AMAO 1)
Implement the Colorado
English Language
Proficiency Standards
(CELP) and frameworks to
scaffold instruction to
develop English language
proficiency.
ACCESS Proficiency
(AMAO 2)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
TCAP (AMAO 3)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
22
Action Planning Form for 2013-14 and 2014-15
Major Improvement Strategy #1: Implement the PSD Standards-Based Teaching & Learning Framework district-wide in all content areas, preK-12, to promote a learning system
with aligned expectations for instructional practice, professional development, and educator effectiveness.
Root Cause(s) Addressed:
 Prior to the creation of a standards-based teaching and learning framework, the district supported the practice of individual schools developing site-specific instructional
expectations.
 Prior to recent state accountability systems reaching down to the individual classroom teacher, a site-specific approach to determining instructional practice and expectations
was acceptable.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
 State Accreditation
 Student Graduation and Completion Plan (Designated Graduation District)  Title IA
 Title IIA
 Title III
 Gifted Program
 Other: ____________________________________________________________________________
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
Timeline
2013-14
1. Structures and Systems of Implementation
Deliver Standards-Based Teaching and April
Learning Framework, including
2013
expectations for students, school
educators, school administrators, district
administrators, and parents to Cabinet
and the PSD Board of Education for
review.
Develop expectations for system-wide
implementation of Standards-Based
Teaching and Learning Framework in
Poudre School District.
February
2013June
2014
2014-15
Resources
Key Personnel*
(Amount and Source: federal,
state, and/or local)
Representatives
from the
StandardsBased Teaching
and Learning
Framework
Task Force
(SBTLF-TF)
State Race to the Top Grant
District and
School
Administrators,
Teacher
Stakeholder
Groups, Parent
and Community
Stakeholder
Groups
Work will be conducted at
monthly SBTLF meetings,
district administrator
meetings, and stakeholder
feedback sessions.
Local Funds
Implementation Benchmarks
Introduction, purpose
statements, FAQ section,
glossary, and editing
completed by February of
2013.
Standards-Based Teaching
and Learning Framework Task
Force conducts final meeting
in April of 2013.
Rough Draft Implementation
Plan to be completed by June
2013.
Feedback collected to
complete the Implementation
Plan captured throughout
spring of 2013.
Status of Action Step* (e.g.,
completed, in progress, not begun)
Completed
Ongoing
 Adopted CEL teacher
evaluation rubric to align
with Educator
Effectiveness legislation
 School administrators
and central office
administrators complete
CEL evaluation training
23
Leadership teams from all
buildings will be trained in
Leading for Instructional
Improvement by Spring 2014;
school teams will train
members of their school staff
beginning in Fall 2013
by Spring 2014
Classified Staff Overviews
during Spring 2014
Develop a comprehensive
communications plan that is designed to
share information and build common
understanding of the Standards-Based
Teaching and Learning Framework for
all PSD Stakeholders.
April
2013June
2014
Design comprehensive professional
development plan that provides ongoing
support for developing shared
understanding and increased working
knowledge of the Standards-Based
Teaching and Learning Framework.
February
2013May
2013
Develop web-based resource system to April
provide ongoing support for professional 2013 –
growth and working knowledge of the
August
PSD
Communication
Department,
PSD Superintendent’s
Cabinet,
Student
Achievement
CADRE,
Professional
Development
Team
Local Funds
Professional
Development
Team, SBTLFTF, Mentoring
Program
Coordinator,
Communication
s Department
State Race to the Top Grant
SBTLF – TF
resource
subcommittee,
Local Funds
Comprehensive
Communications Plan is
completed by August 1, 2013.
Principals continue to clarify
connections between
Framework and teacher
evaluation rubric for staff
through Spring 2014
PD plan is finalized.
Local Funds
Criteria and protocol for
adding/deleting resources
completed by June 1, 2013.
Ongoing
Starting in Fall 2013,
communication related to the
Framework is embedded in
PD opportunities.
 New superintendent
included in graphic and
included in Soapbox
article in local newspaper
 August Leadership
meeting for all
administrators included
history and sharing of
Online Toolkit
 New Teacher Orientation
overview and activities
with the Framework
Completed
PD Plan available in
electronic form within Online
Toolkit:
http://www.psdschools.org/pr
ofessional-development/sbtlf
Completed: initial webbased resource system SBTLF Online Toolkit
24
Standards-Based Teaching and
Learning Framework.
2013
Curriculum and
Instruction
Department,
Student
Achievement
CADRE, IT
Support Team
Initial web-based resource
system operational by August
1, 2013.
2. Increase Shared Understanding Among Stakeholders
Utilize multiple and varied means to
School and
Local Funds
May
ensure all district stakeholders have
Central
Office
2014
thorough exposure to the Framework,
Administrators,
its design, connection to CEL research
Asst.
and the teacher evaluation rubric and
Superintendents
see how it connects to their work.
, Executive
Director of
 School and Central Office
Student
Administrators
Achievement,
 Central Office Support
CADRE – PD
Services Staff
Specialist

Licensed Staff
Spring
2015
Principals,
Instructional
Coaches,
Central Office
Support
Services Staff,
PD Team,
Instructional
Coach
Coordinator
Local Funds
All Administrators completed
Leading for Instructional
Improvement and Professional
Practice Evaluation Rubric
training with CEL by June
2014.
http://www.psdschools.org/pr
ofessional-development/sbtlf
Ongoing: upkeep and
addition to toolkit over time
Ongoing
Ongoing content at Leadership
meetings and Principal
meetings.
Ongoing content at CADRE
meetings and CADRE Partners
PLC.
Lead teams from all schools
trained in Leading for
Instructional Improvement
training by February 2014.
Ongoing
School representatives trained
in Professional Practice
Evaluation Rubric Overview in
September 2013.
Ongoing, embedded trainings
at school, District Content
Team meetings, Summer
Institute, optional district PD
offerings.
25
Instructional coaches support
best practices outlined in
Framework starting in Spring
2014.

Educators New to PSD
2014
2015
Mentoring
Coordinator, PD
Specialist,
Central Office
Support
Services Staff
Local Funds
New Teacher Orientation
based on Framework
beginning in August 2013.
Initial implementation of
sessions/program –
completed
Quarterly Teaching & Learning
Seminars beginning in
September 2013.
Ongoing
Excellence in a Flash
Mentoring Program beginning
in August 2013.

Classified Staff
Spring
2015
PD Specialist,
Classified PD
Coordinator
Local Funds
Embedded trainings at school,
Classified Training Days
beginning in October 2013.
Ongoing

Parents/Guardians and
Community
Spring
2015
Principals,
School
Accountability
committees
Local Funds
School Accountability
Committee meetings.
Ongoing
3. Deepen Working Knowledge
Utilize multiple and varied means to
ensure all district stakeholders apply
Framework expectations in daily
practice.
 All schools
2014
Principals,
School
stakeholders,
PD Team
Resources available in Online
Toolkit including background
video to explain Framework
and its role in our learning
system by June 2014.
Local Funds
Schools focused on one
district-wide dimension (‘13-14
Purpose) and at least one of
school choice. SIP will reflect
area of focus.
Presentation to the District
Accountability Committee
Channel 10 panel discussion
Superintendent community
web message
Ongoing
26
Embedded PD at schools
based on SIP to go in-depth
with identified dimensions.

Central Office Support
2014
Central Office
Support
Services Staff,
CADRE,
PD Specialist
Local Funds
Differentiated support from
central office to school
leadership teams based on
school’s area of focus.
Ongoing
Create base PD modules for
each dimension of the
Framework available through
Online Toolkit by Spring 2015.
Current PD offerings include:
Assessment for Student
Learning class,
Student Engagement class
and,
Year-long secondary
principal PLC focused on
SBTLF.
Identify and implement one PD
offering district-wide for each
dimension by Spring 2016 and
build capacity to have experts
per dimension to facilitate and
support school and district
efforts.
27
Implement multi-tiered system of supports, district-wide, to address adequate growth needs of students who are currently below grade level.
 PSD’s Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) includes many variations across the school sites. Some of the school-level MTSS are not supporting adequate growth
for students currently testing below grade level expectations.
 Not all students have access to consistent universal instruction and not all teachers have the capacity to differentiate at the universal level or provide targeted, explicit
instruction to address growth gap utilizing assessment data to drive instructional decisions.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 Title IIA
 Title III
 Gifted Program
 Other: _____________________________________________________________________________
Description of Action Steps to
Implement the Major Improvement
Strategy
Timeline
2013-14
2014-15
Resources
Key Personnel*
1. Information about Students Currently Below Grade Level
Gather, record, and share comprehensive, actionable information about student learning.
Identify appropriate diagnostic and
2014
Assessment
screening assessments measures
Coordinator
district-wide including school-based
measures
Research, purchase, and implement a
user-friendly data warehouse toolkit
and dashboard.
Provide professional development for
using data analysis protocols and datadriven dialogues to inform instruction
utilizing the data warehouse toolkit.
2014
Director of
Information
Technology, Data
Warehouse
Toolkit Team
Assessment
Coordinator,
Director of
Research and
Evaluation, PD
Specialist
Local funds
($500,000 Mill Bond)
Local funds
(allocated through PD
budget)
completed, in progress, not begun)
Inventory of appropriate
diagnostic and screening
assessments will be created
by June 2014.
Communicate inventory to
principal groups and other
relevant groups starting June
2014.
Research and purchase
completed by June 2014.
Implementation begins
August 2014.
In progress
Content and structure of PD
designed by July 2014.
PD begins with targeted
groups in Fall 2014.
Staff begins to utilize data
warehouse toolkit to inform
instruction in Fall 2014.
In progress
In progress
Not begun
28
2. Meeting Needs of Students Currently Below Grade Level
Systematize the MTSS process,
2014district-wide, and increase team
2015
capacities to
 Frame the learning needs of
groups of students and individual
students based on screening
data or common interim
assessments,
 Set measureable catch up goals,
 Develop and deliver intervention
plans based on data and
individual student needs,
 Implement effective progress
monitoring,
 Make instructional or intervention
adjustments based on analysis of
multiple data points.
MTSS District
Consultants,
MTSS District
Advisory Team,
Principals,
School-based RtI
Coordinators
CDE MTSS Grant
($3000 budged for MTSS
Team PD)
Local Funds
Utilize CDE “MTSS District
Systems Self-Assessment”
to analyze district current
state on elements of the
MTSS process by January
2014.
Create strategic action steps
including professional
development, to further
improve the implementation
of MTSS process districtwide by June 2014.
Schools analyze their current
state on elements of the
MTSS process by January
2015.
Create strategic action steps
to further improve the
implementation of MTSS
process in each respective
school by June 2015.
Ongoing
3. Equal Access to Universal Instruction
Plan intentional structures that allow equal access to universal instruction, maximize time for learning for all students, and collaboration among professionals.
Director of
Local Funds
Identified schools will initiate Ongoing
 Schools will analyze access for
20132014 Integrated
solutions to increase the
all students to universal content. 2014
2015
Services,
access to universal
 Increase collaboration among
Assistant Director
instruction by June 2014.
general education, integrated
of
Student
Schools and departments
services, and specialized
Services,
School
will provide professional
services.
Administrators,
development as needed to
 Provide professional
Director of
support collaborative efforts
development opportunities to
Information
beginning June 2014.
support collaborative efforts
Technology,
All schools will create
among general education,
Director
of
structures and schedules
integrated services, and
Student
Services,
that allow maximum access
specialized services.
PD Specialist
for all students, based on
needs, by June 2015.
All schools will create
29
schedules that include
structures for collaboration
across special services and
general education by June
2015.
4. Focus on Targeted & Intensive Instruction
Plan instruction and make instructional adjustments based on ongoing needs assessment.
Provide professional development to
PD Specialist,
Local Funds
2014increase teacher capacity (knowledge
CADRE,
PSD
2015
and skills) to provide quality targeted
educational
and intensive instruction to address
experts
specific learning gaps.
(Teachers,
Interventionist)
5. Professional Collaboration and Communication
Increase capacity of principals to
2014 observe trends in educator practice,
2015
provide ongoing feedback, and support
teachers to implement best practices
that address the learning needs of
students below grade level.
Improve hiring practices to identify
areas of educator expertise needs and
recruiting options to attract highly
qualified ELA, Integrated services
educators, instructional coaches, and
interventionists.
20142015
Principals,
Assistant
Principals,
Elementary
Assistant
Principal TOSAs,
Assistant
Superintendents,
PD Specialist;
Equity and
Diversity
Coordinator
Human
Resources,
Integrated
Services
Administrators,
Assistant Director
of Student
Identify needed PD offerings
and structures (district-wide,
school-based) by April 2014.
Offer classes in each
identified area starting June
2014.
Inventory participation and
collect feedback from
trainings to inform offerings
and needed budget for the
following school years by
June 2015.
Ongoing
Local Funds
Complete needs assessment
to identify necessary
supports by June 2014.
Develop action plan based
on identified needs.
Provide supports based on
identified areas of need
starting in 2014-2015.
Ongoing
Local Funds
Identify specific areas of
educator expertise needed
by March 2014.
Strategically recruit at fairs
starting in Spring 2014.
Partner with schools to
screen and hire every spring.
Ongoing
Federal Funds
($2100 budgeted for
recruiting)
30
Ensure alignment of best practices
amongst district support staff teams to
provide school-based coaching for
targeted and intensive instruction.
20142015
Align support efforts for identified
schools with specific needs.
20142015
Services,
Principals; Equity
and Diversity
Coordinator
CADRE
Assistant
Superintendents,
School Support
Team
Coordinator,
CADRE, School
Principals as
identified
Local Funds
Federal Funds
Local Funds
Expand purpose and content
of CADRE Partners PLC
starting in October 2013.
Complete needs assessment
to identify necessary
supports by June 2014.
Provide supports based on
identified areas of need
starting in 2014-2015.
Ongoing
Ongoing
31
Establish a PreK-3 literacy system to serve as a foundation to strengthen effective delivery of standards-based, balanced literacy instruction.
Teachers are not consistently implementing balanced literacy instruction that is standards-based, integrated across content and targeted to meet the individual needs of PreK-3
students.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 Title IIA
 Title III
 Gifted Program
 Other: _____________________________________________________________________________
Description of Action Steps to
Implement the Major Improvement
Strategy
1. READ Act
Implement READ Act (Reading to
Ensure Academic Development),
which includes developing READ
plans to impact the growth and
achievement of K-3 grade students
with a significant reading deficiency.
Timeline
2013-14
September
2013 –
June 2014
2014-15
August
2014
Key Personnel*
Principal Project
Leaders, Project
Coordinator,
Literacy Facilitator,
Director of
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment,
Assistant Supt. of
Elementary Schools
Resources
No additional resources
No additional resources
Monitor State Board rules
and decisions related to
READ plans and
assessments. November
2013 – February 2014.
completed, in progress, not
begun)
In Progress
DRA Leads provide triannual READ Act updates to In Progress
teachers and to parents as
appropriate: December 2012
– May 2014
Kindergarten – 3rd grade
teachers and principals
provide feedback on
templates: September 2013June 2014.
Publish revised templates
for 2014-2015 school year.
August 2014
In Progress
Not Started
2. Colorado’s Achievement Plan for Kids (CAP4K)
32
Develop and implement School
Readiness Plan processes, including
Professional Development, which
includes Colorado Academic
Standards.
August
2013 –
June 2014
Pend
CDE
approval
2015-16
August
2014
Director of Early
Childhood, Principal
Project Team
Leaders, Project
Coordinator,
Director of
Instructional
Technology,
Director of
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment,
Assistant Supt. of
Elementary Schools
State and Local Funds
Monitor State Board rules
and decisions related to
impacts on school readiness
plans and assessments:
November 2013 – February
2014.
Purchase School Readiness
Assessment: Date pending
CDE approval (2015-16)
Adopt or create school
readiness plans to coincide
with school readiness
assessment selection:
November 2013 – August
2014
Professional Development
Plan created and integrated
into technology professional
development plan: August –
December 2013
School Readiness
Assessment Professional
Development Plan
Implemented: January –
May 2014
Pre-K and K teachers
receive training on
developing and
implementing school
readiness plan: March –
August 2014
Pre-K & Kindergarten
teachers and principals
provide feedback on the
In Progress
Completed for PK
Pending CDE information
for K
Completed in PK
In progress for K
Completed in PK
In Progress for K
In Progress for PK
In Progress for PK
In Progress for PK
33
readiness plan development
process on a quarterly
basis: August 2013- June
2015
3. Assessments to support effective literacy development
Select a Pre-K and Kindergarten
August
Director of Early
School Readiness Assessment to be
2013 –
Childhood, Principal
administered and used to guide
June 2014
Project Team
instruction and school readiness plans
Leaders, Project
per Colorado Achievement Plan for
Coordinator,
Kids (CAP4K) legislation.
Literacy & Math
Facilitators, Director
of Instructional
Technology,
Director of
Curriculum,
Select interim and diagnostic
Instruction &
assessments to be administered and
Assessment,
used to guide development of READ
Assistant Supt. of
plans and appropriate instructional
Elementary
interventions per Read Act legislation.
Local Funds
Monitor State Board
decisions related to
recommended school
readiness assessments:
November 2013 – June
2015.
Completed for PK
Pending additional CDE
decisions for K
District Assessment
Selection Committee
reviews and recommends
adoption of assessments
from state list. January-May,
2014
In Progress
4. Professional Development
train teachers on implementing the
READ Act and CAP4K readiness
plans.
Provide professional development
using research based strategies to
support teachers in both universal and
targeted instruction to address literacy
needs.
January
2013 – July
2014
August
2014 –
June
2015
Director of Title I,
PD Specialist,
District Coach
Coordinator,
Assessment
Coordinator,
Elementary
Principals (of
targeted schools),
Director of Student
Services, Executive
Director of Student
Achievement &
Local Funds
Literacy facilitators and
literacy coaches provide
trainings on developing and
implementing plans
In Progress
Literacy facilitators, literacy
coaches, MTSS staff, and IS
staff provide trainings on
research based strategies to
address literacy needs.
April 2014 – June 2015
Literacy facilitators, literacy
34
properly administer and interpret
results from the adopted assessments
that support the READ Act and
CAP4K.
5. Collaboration
Develop systems of collaboration
among community early childhood
providers and elementary programs
regarding Pre-K school readiness
plans, kindergarten transition plans,
and articulating grade-level benchmark
expectations to the Colorado
Academic Standards.
Professional
Development,
Assistant
Superintendent of
Elementary
Schools, Teachers
August
2013 –
June 2014
Fall
2014
Early Childhood
Federal, State, and Local
Director, Early
Funds
Childhood
Community
Specialist/Transition
Specialist,
Elementary
Principals, Early
Childhood Council
of Larimer County
(personnel),
Assistant
Superintendent of
Elementary
Schools; Equity and
Diversity
Coordinator
coaches, and publisher
experts provide trainings on
administering the adopted
assessments.
April-June 2014
Professional development to
principals pertaining to Early
Childhood Education
standards and evaluation
Meet with directors of
community childcare sites to
share Pre-K & K standards,
school readiness resources,
and school readiness plan
templates, collect data on
school readiness strategies
used by centers, and
discuss transition to
kindergarten in PSD:
January 2013-December
2014
Attend Home Child Care
Association monthly
meetings: September 2013May 2014
Collaborate with other Early
Childhood stakeholders in
Larimer County (e.g. Early
Childhood Council of
Larimer County, United
Way/Pathways Past
Poverty, Thompson School
District, Park School District,
Poudre River Public Library,
Lt. Governor Literacy
Initiative, Colorado State
Not Started
Not Started
In Progress
In Progress
35
Library, local education
organizations and
community centers) to
develop and distribute
school readiness materials
and provide a common
message about school
readiness in Larimer
County: September 2012May 2014
Identify school readiness
strategies and develop plans
for collaboration between
community Early Childhood Not Started
professionals and
elementary school staff.
Collaborate among sites to
address needs of students
who change schools.
6. Parent Engagement
Provide opportunities to enhance
family engagement and teacher-parent
partnership in children’s literacy
development.
August
2013 –
June 2014
Parents; Early
Childhood Parent,
Family, Community
Engagement
Coordinator,
Director of Early
Childhood, Director
of Student Services;
Assistant Director of
Student Services,
Assistant Director of
Early Childhood,
Transition
Specialist;
Integrated Services
Parent Liaison;
Lead Partners -
Federal, State and Local
Funds
Provide opportunities for
parents to engage in and
support the work of Early
Childhood Education.
Ongoing
Update Early Childhood
page on district website with
a list of community
resources and events
Not Started
Create opportunities for
parents to become involved
in, and to become
empowered leaders in the
Early Childhood Education
community.
Not Started
36
United Way Early
Childhood Council;
Principals; Equity
and Diversity
Coordinator
Section V: Supportive Addenda Forms
Required for Title III Grantees Identified for Improvement (AMAOs)
Grantees identified for improvement under Title III must use this format to ensure that all improvement planning requirements are met. As a part of this process, some grantees may meet some of the requirements in
earlier sections of the UIP and may just reference the UIP page numbers in this form.
37
Description of Title III Improvement Plan
Requirements
Recommended Location
in UIP
Analysis of data. Specifically identify the factors that prevented
the LEA from meeting the AMAO targets. Also, identify the
strengths and weaknesses of the current plan, specifically Major
Improvement Strategies and/or Action Steps to meet the
linguistic (AMAO 1 and 2) and academic (AMAO 3) needs of
English Language Learners.
Section III (Data Narrative,
including progress
monitoring of previous
year’s targets)
Scientifically Based Research Strategies. Describe
scientifically based research strategies to improve academic
achievement and English Language Development (ELD) for
English Language Learners.
Section IV (Action Plan)
Evidence of coordination with other ESEA programs as
appropriate.
Section IV (Resource
Column of Action Plan)
Description of Requirement or Crosswalk of Description in
UIP Data Narrative or Action Plan (include page numbers)
The district did not meet the growth target of AMAO 1, the expected growth in English
Language Development for the first time since the growth target has been in place.
 Root Cause: PSD lacks a systemic approach to assure all students who are English
Language Learners have access to Standards-Based English Language instruction
based on rigorous academic content.
Implement the Colorado English Language Proficiency Standards (CELP) and frameworks
to scaffold instruction to develop the English language for instruction to the Colorado
Academic Standards (CAS).
Identify and implement specific systemic evidence-based strategies and resources to
address student achievement gaps and align intervention and support materials with grade
level Colorado Academic Standards (CAS).
Expose students to the format of the ACCESS assessment.
All parental involvement activities demonstrate coordination and collaboration between Title
IA and Title III programs. The Community Parent Advisory Council consists of parents from
Title I schools and ELA program schools.
Title III Set Aside funding enhanced parent outreach and communication with the addition of
Cultural Mediators that understand the cultural implications and language skills for Arabic
and Latino families. Two cultural mediators serve schools that serve the majority of our
immigrant population in PSD. Tutors who speak Mandarin Chinese and Vietnamese are
hired on an hourly basis to assist newcomer students who benefit from first language
explanations as they learn English.
Spanish-speaking family liaisons are housed at sites with a large number of Spanishspeaking students and families. They provide oral and written communication in Spanish at
the school sites and during home visits.
Professional development is provided to all Title I and Title III staff jointly to ensure
seamless programming support and professional growth. Meetings take place monthly after
school with staff to address areas of language acquisition, poverty, differentiation, EL
strategies and Federal program regulations.
38
Section V: Supporting Addenda Forms
For Administrative Units with Gifted Education Programs
Administrative Units (AU) must complete this form to document Gifted Education program plan requirements for student performance. AUs responsible for multiple districts may collaborate with districts, this is especially
true for AUs with member district that have small n-counts. Numbers can be aggregated to the AU level and common targets can be recorded, as appropriate, in district documents. As a part of the improvement planning
process, districts are strongly encouraged to weave appropriate requirements into earlier sections of the UIP. This form provides a way to ensure all components of the program are met through assurances and by (1)
describing the requirements in this addendum or by (2) listing the page numbers of where the gifted education elements are located in the UIP.
Description of Gifted Education Program Requirements
Record reflection on progress towards previous year’s
targets.
Recommended
location in UIP
Section III: Data
Narrative
Description of requirement or Crosswalk of Description in UIP Data Narrative or Action Plan (include page number)
Poudre School District identified two targets in its 2012-2016 Program Plan. The targets for the AU are:
By the 2015-2016 school year, PSD students identified gifted in Language Arts will, as a group, score a median
growth percentile of 63, which is considered to be at the 90th percentile in the state of Colorado.
and
By the 2015-2016 school year, students identified gifted in Language Arts will, as a group, consistently score an
average of 95th percentile or above on Reading MAP (NWEA).
Progress has been made towards each target, although neither has been met. Scores tend to remain stable or
trend slightly upward over time. Although overall scores show that PSD is quite close to reaching both goals set,
we need to train individual schools to look at their scores in relationship to these goals to determine their progress
towards meeting the goals for their gifted learners.
Disaggregate gifted student performance by sub-groups
(e.g., grade ranges, minority, and FRED) to reveal
strengths and/or gaps (disparities) in achievement and/or
growth on state and/or district assessments.
Section III: Data
Narrative
Gifted students in Poudre School District continue to perform at high levels. Scores are consistent over the past
several years.
Below is the TCAP breakdown by sub-groups.
All GT:
MGP
Reading
Math
Writing
%
Advanced
Reading
PSD
2011
58
61
60
PSD
2011
45.2
PSD
2012
55
55
58
PSD
2012
42.5
PSD
2013
58
62
58
PSD
2013
44.9
39
Math
Writing
83
50.6
83.2
45.5
GT by Area of Identification:
Academic
Subject
Year
Name
86
45.3
Gifted and Talented
MGP
Percent
Advanced
2013
Math
Math
60
87.4
2013
Reading
Language Arts
61
50.5
2013
Writing
Language Arts
60
47.7
Below is the TCAP breakdown by sub-groups.
GT Students that qualify for free or reduced lunch.
Academic
Year
Subject
Name
Gifted and Talented
MGP
Percent
Advanced
2013
Math
GT, Free and Reduced
61
77.7
2013
Reading
53
27.6
2013
Writing
47
28.1
MGP
Percent Advanced
GT Students that belong to the minority group.
Minority Status:
Academic
Subject
Year
Name
Gifted and Talented
2013
Math
GT, Minority
61
84.7
2013
Reading
GT, Minority
59
45.4
2013
Writing
GT, Minority
62
46.9
Average district GT MAP scores tend to fluctuate between the 90th percentile and the 95th percentile, depending on
the time of year. In the fall of 2013, students identified as gifted in either reading AND math or just reading scored
an average of 91.84.
Provide a data analysis that includes trend statements,
prioritized performance challenges and root causes that
investigates the needs of selected student groups.
Section III: Data
Narrative
Within the TCAP data breakdown, there are several pieces of information worth noting. As a whole, gifted students
perform much higher on TCAP Math then they do on TCAP Reading or Writing. In 2013, 86 percent of identified
gifted students scored advanced on TCAP Math, versus 44.9 percent advanced on TCAP Reading. Median Growth
Percentile (MGP) shows a less dramatic difference, with an MGP of 62 for Math and 58 for Reading.
40
Also worth noting is the downward trend of scores from Elementary to Middle to High School. Students tend to
score lower across the board as they move from one level to the next. For example, in 2013, 94.1 percent of
elementary GT students scored advanced on Math TCAP (MGP: 69), while 90.1 percent of middle school GT
students scored advanced (MGP: 60) and 65.4 percent of high school students (MGP: 54). Reading TCAP scores
do not show as significant differences, but still drop.
Gifted students who also have free and reduced lunch status tend to score slightly lower than peers who do not
have free and reduced lunch status. However, these students have shown significant gains in the last several
years, most particularly in math (2013 MGP – 61, 2012 MGP – 46, 2011 MGP, 52).
As a whole, gifted students in Poudre School District continue to out-perform non-gifted peers. Scores are, for the
most part, stable or trending upward in all tested subject areas. A particular positive is consistent high growth
scores on TCAP Math. The district will continue to examine the downward trend of test scores as students move
from elementary to middle to high school, as well as the significant score differences between math performance
and reading performance.
Potential root causes: the decline in motivation and effort as students’ progress through school and the fact that
students at the high school level are not necessarily being tested on the material from the courses in which they are
currently enrolled.
Set targets for gifted students’ performance that meet or
exceed state expectations that facilitate gifted students’
achievement and growth (e.g., move-up, keep-up) in their
area(s) of strength.
Section IV:
Target Setting
Form
By the 2015-2016 school year, PSD students identified gifted in Language Arts will, as a group, score a median
growth percentile of 63, which is considered to be at the 90th percentile in the state of Colorado.
And
By the 2015-2016 school year, students identified gifted in Language Arts will, as a group, consistently score an
average of 95th percentile or above on Reading MAP (NWEA).
Describe gifted student performance targets in terms of
either the district targets (convergence) or as a specific
gifted student target/s (divergence) based upon
performance challenges of gifted students.
Section IV:
Target Setting
Form
Two different data points will be used to focus on reading, as this is a district priority as stated in our district learning
goals. MAP scores are used more often by teachers to periodically measure student achievement and growth, so
they have more frequent access to these results. Students take MAP in the Fall and the Spring (grades 2-10).
MAP is also a leveled test, which is more appropriate for gifted learners. As a district, PSD will also consider the
Colorado Growth Model median growth percentile for reading to determine how PSD students achieve in
comparison to their like-ability peers around the state of Colorado. It is beneficial to use both MAP and CSAP (now
TCAP) as the research shows that students who score 95th percentile on MAP have a 50% likelihood of scoring in
the advanced range on CSAP (TCAP).
Describe the interim measures to monitor progress of
individual student performance for the selected student
sub-group or grade level range.
Section IV:
Target Setting
Form
Several interim measures are in place to monitor progress of student performance. Schools use MAP (NWEA)
scores, DRA-2, student achievement grades, report cards, as well as qualitative data to look at student growth
throughout the school year.
In addition, Poudre School District is in the process of adopting a data management system, which will allow
41
schools to monitor progress on a more regular basis.
Identify major (differentiated) strategies to be implemented
that support and address the identified performance
challenges and will enable the AU to meet the performance
targets.
Section IV:
Action Plan
Poudre School District is made up of 50 schools and 3 charter schools. Each school makes decisions regarding the specific
needs of their gifted populations based on funding and available resources. Tier II and III interventions are determined by the
school.
The following are common services offered in Poudre School District. It is important to note that not all services are offered at
each school.
Elementary Schools:

Enrichment: Enrichment extends the curriculum. The structure in which it is offered is sometimes a “pull-out” setting
once or multiple times per week.

Acceleration: Acceleration has many different meanings. It can exist as either replacement curriculum with the
content of a higher grade-level or a mixture of the current grade level and the next grade level’s content.

In-class Differentiation: This service is offered by teachers within the classroom setting. Teachers pre-assess and
adjust the curriculum as needed in order to create respectful tasks for advanced learners. Some strategies might
include accelerated pace, choice in content, open-ended projects, more complexity and depth, etc. It is important to
consider that differentiation should not result in MORE work for a gifted learner.

After School enrichment opportunities: Some of these might include activities like Lego Robotics, Math Counts, Math
Olympiad, or Odyssey of the Mind. These should not be the only services a school offers for advanced learners,
however, they are a great addition to the menu of options.

Cluster Grouping: This practice allows schools to “cluster” gifted learners in one classroom so that the teacher can
effectively differentiate for a larger group of students. This is an example of a structure for providing differentiation or
other gifted services.

Social and Emotional/Affective Interventions: Some elementary schools offer “GT Discussion Groups” in which a
counselor or trained teacher gathers GT students to discuss issues that affect their social/emotional well-being.
Some of these issues might address peer relationships, academic and achievement expectations, perfectionism,
post-secondary preparation, challenge, etc.
Middle Schools: Middle school programming is organized under 4 goal areas: Post-secondary readiness and career exploration,
advanced academic performance and achievement, independent learning and interest exploration, and social and emotional
support. Each school is encouraged to use this structure for writing ALPs and determining interventions/services. This allows
for schools with many GT students to communicate more effectively with students, teachers, and parents about the options for
gifted programming at the school site. Below are some examples of services at PSD middle schools.

Advanced Coursework: Courses like Honors, IB, or Pre-AP are courses that are designed to meet the needs of
advanced learners. While these courses are not exclusively for gifted learners, they do serve a role in the menu of
options a school offers gifted students.

Accelerated Math: PSD utilizes an accelerated math program in which 5th graders are assessed and potentially
placed in 7th grade math as 6th graders. At this point, students continue to learn math skills at a higher grade-level
than their age peers. The program is vertically aligned so that students can continue to grow in advanced math
throughout high school.

Extended Learning Opportunities: Some middle schools offer gifted services through the Extended Learning
Opportunity (ELO) time that is built into the schedule. In these situations, courses that are more complex or rigorous
are offered to gifted learners either in an area of interest, or in a structure that allows gifted students to pursue an
area of interest in a more in-depth manner.

GT Class: Some middle schools offer a “Gifted and Talented” class that replaces the regular course. For example,
students might take a “GT Language Arts” class if they are identified in Language Arts.

Social and Emotional/Affective Interventions: Some middle schools offer “GT Discussion Groups” in which a
42


counselor or trained teacher gathers GT students to discuss issues that affect their social/emotional well-being.
Some of these issues might address peer relationships, academic and achievement expectations, perfectionism,
post-secondary preparation, challenge, etc.
After school enrichment opportunities: While these are excellent options for students to pursue an area of interest at
deeper levels, these should not be the only services a school offers for advanced learners.
High School: High school programming is organized under 4 goal areas: Post-secondary readiness and career exploration,
advanced academic performance and achievement, independent learning and interest exploration, and social and emotional
support. Each school is encouraged to use this structure for writing ALPs and determining interventions/services. This allows
for schools with many GT students to communicate more effectively with students, teachers, and parents about the options for
gifted programming at the school site. Below are some examples of services at PSD high schools.

Social and Emotional/Affective Interventions: Some high schools offer “GT Discussion Groups” in which a counselor
or trained teacher gathers GT students to discuss issues that affect their social/emotional well-being. Some of these
issues might address peer relationships, academic and achievement expectations, perfectionism, post-secondary
preparation, challenge, etc.


After school enrichment opportunities/field trips: While these are excellent options for students to pursue an area of
interest at deeper levels, these should not be the only services a school offers for advanced learners. Some high
schools offer field trips specifically for identified gifted learners. These field trips are often college visits.

Advanced Coursework: AP and IB courses offer a higher level of rigor for gifted learners. These courses, while they
are not a “gifted program” are a great component to a school’s overall GT program, which should include options for
students to learn at advanced and rigorous levels.
43
Description of Gifted Education Program Requirements (cont.)
Describe steps and timeline for major improvement strategies and
professional development that will have positive and long term impact
to improve gifted student performance.
Recommended
location in UIP
Section IV:
Action Plan
Description of requirement or Crosswalk of Description in UIP Data Narrative or
Action Plan (include page number)
As we work towards developing steps for major improvement strategies, we will
follow the timeline set forth in the 2012-2016 GT Program Plan.
As we break down the data at the district level, it is equally important for school
sites to look at the same data for the identified gifted students in their buildings.
Therefore, the first, and most important step in the timeline to improve gifted
student performance is to provide school GT site coordinators with professional
development in regards to reading data. Learning how to effectively read and
disseminate data will help them to be a part of the building level conversations
regarding best practices and programming for gifted learners. This work will begin
in the fall of 2014.
Poudre School District has spent considerable time in the past several years
working on creating processes and protocol for the identification of gifted learners.
This important work has brought us to where we are now, which is a point where we
have the structure in place to focus on the programming for gifted learners.
Specific professional development is in the works around meeting the needs of
gifted learners within the Colorado Academic Standards, Rigor and Engagement for
Gifted Learners, using data to make informed decisions regarding gifted
programming at individual school sites, and more (included in all of this professional
development is the connection between this work and the Standards Based
Teaching and Learning Framework. For more information about the framework,
visit: http://www.psdschools.org/professional-development/sbtlf). In addition, we will
continue to identify ways to involve parents more in the process as well as identify
ways to better share best practices among all stakeholders. This work will be
ongoing.
Specific professional development for both principals and site coordinators is being
put together as a way to further develop the programming available at all schools.
This work will begin in the 2014-2015 school year and continue on from there.
In addition, the district GT facilitator will offer to work with building principals and
site coordinators to look at the data at the site level and create a program plan at
individual schools to ensure that the needs of gifted learners are being met and the
growth targets set by the district are being achieved. This work will be developed in
the spring of 2014 and shared in the fall of 2014
The district GT facilitator will also work with the PSD Partnership Center coordinator
to increase the use of community members as mentors working with gifted learners.
Describe who has primary responsibility for implementing action steps
Section IV:
There is a shared responsibility for implementing action steps for improvement of
44
for improvement of gifted student performance.
Action Plan
gifted student performance between all stakeholders. Included in that are Gifted
and Talented Site Coordinators, the district Gifted and Talented Facilitator, the
Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Gifted and Talented Identification
Specialists, as well as building administrators.
While this responsibility is shared among many groups, the overall organization and
plan for implementation is the responsibility of the district Gifted and Talented
Facilitator.
Indicate how student achievement is reported to parents and students,
especially when gifted students are above grade level instruction in
one or more contents at a grade level.
Section IV: Action
Plan
Parents have several options for understanding testing data, including student
achievement scores. TCAP scores are sent home to parents (and students) in the
fall of every year. Schools determine how these scores are sent home, either
through US Mail or by students. Score summaries, as well as a letter explaining the
scores, are sent home each year. CogAT scores are also sent home this way. In
addition, the PSD website includes information about the tests used as well as links
to the ParentVUE web portal, where parents can view other testing information for
both the district and other districts around the state. Videos created by the PSD
Director of Research and Evaluation are also available to give parents and teachers
alike more background information regarding student achievement and the growth
model. At the high school level, parents and students also receive information
through Naviance.
More information regarding the districts position on Assessment for Student
Learning is available on the PSD website. Poudre School District defines this
strand of the framework as the “intentional use of ongoing, frequent assessment
opportunities designed to provide students with meaningful feedback regarding their
level of performance and to provide educators with information to make timely and
appropriate instructional adjustments.”
Additional achievement data is reported to both parents and students through the
ParentVUE Portal, which gives access to student grades, as well as quarterly report
cards and student conferences.
* Note that the Gifted Education Program budget is due in April. The budget can be found at: http://www.cde.state.co.us/gt/director.htm.
45
Gifted Program Assurances
Description of General Program Assurances
Mark one box:
Description of General Program Assurances
Mark one box:
The district uses multiple pathways and tools to ensure equal and fair
access to identification, especially in traditionally underserved student
groups; and makes progress toward proportional representation in the
gifted population.
 Completed
 In progress
 No
The district/BOCES maintains a local database of gifted students
that records the students’ area(s) of strength as defined in
regulations: general ability, a specific academic area(s), visual
arts, music, performing arts, creativity, and/or leadership.
 Yes
 In progress
 No
Gifted students receive special provisions, Tier II and Tier III, for
appropriate instruction and content extensions in the academic
standards that align with individual strengths.
 Yes
 In progress
 No
ALPS are implemented and annually reviewed for every gifted
student for monitoring individual achievement and affective
goals. (Districts may choose to substitute the ALP with the
School Readiness Plan at the kindergarten level; and with the
ICAP at the secondary level, if conditions of individual affective
and achievement goals and parental engagement are fulfilled.)
 Yes
 In progress
 No
 Yes
 In progress
 No
The district/BOCES provides a certified person to administer the
gifted education program plan, provide professional
development, and facilitate implementation of the READ Act to
accelerate reading skills of advanced readers.
 Yes
 In progress
 No
Note: The AU’s program plan should describe the key programming
options matched to areas of giftedness and utilized in serving gifted
students.
The budget and improvement planning process is a collaboration
among stakeholders of schools or districts within the administrative
unit.
Report on State Performance Indicators as Recorded on the 2012-2016 Program Plan
Description of State Performance Indicator
Mark one box:
AU will increase the identification of gifted students from traditionally
under-represented populations as evidenced in proportionality of local
data by 2016.
 Completed
AU will implement procedures to identify exceptional potential/gifted
students in all categories of giftedness.
 Completed
AU will be successful in identifying and moving toward gifted student
achievement/growth targets by 2016.
 Completed
 In progress
 In progress
 In progress
Description of State Performance Indicator
Mark one box:
AU will implement ALPs in high schools either as a blended plan
with the ICAP or as a separate individual ALP by fall 2014.
 Completed
AU will have a policy or guidelines for acceleration. Districts
reviewed acceleration plans for students in general and have a
local acceleration plan for gifted students.
 Completed
AU will accomplish priorities set through the Colorado Gifted
Education Review (C-GER) .
 Completed
 In progress
 In progress
 In progress
46
Administrative Unit Program Plan
Year Two: 2013 - 2014
Request: State funds for identification and programming of gifted students
Name of
Administrative
Unit:
Larimer R-1 – Poudre School District
# of Schools in
AU:
48
Gifted Education
Contact Name:
Mary Nichols
Gifted Education
Contact Address:
2407 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521
Gifted Education
Contact Phone:
Gifted Education
Contact Email:
970-490-3076
Contact Fax
970-490-3611
[email protected]
Dr. Nancy Wright
Print Name of the Superintendent or Designee
Signature of Superintendent or Designee
Date
Mail the cover page with signature to:
Jacquelin Medina, Director
Colorado Department of Education
1560 Broadway, Suite 1175
Denver, CO 80202-1799
[email protected]
Application is due by e-mail on April 30, 2013 to:
Tara Rolfe, [email protected]
47
AU’s Name: _____________________________________
2013-2014 Proposed Budget
Section I: Provide details as to how funds will be used to support strategies for student performance or program improvements (refer to
2012-16 program plan goals, student achievement targets and/or UIP program addendum action plan)
Typical/Eligible Expenditures of
State Gifted and Talented
Education Funds
Suggested/Detailed Chart of
Accounts Codes
A.
State Gifted
Education
Funds
I. Licensed, endorsed personnel
working with gifted students
P=Program
O=Object
G=Grant
Salary
Substitute Teachers
P: 0070, O: 0110, G: 3150
P: 0070, O: 0120, G: 3150
53,000
Additional Earnings/Stipends
Benefits
Sub-total of I.
P: 0070, O: 0150, G: 3150
P: 0070, O: 0200, G: 3150
22,400
2,000
77,400
C.
Administrative Unit's
Contributing Funds **
AU's
Resources
II. Professional Development for
educators of gifted students
Consultant Fees
Contracted Services
P: 2212, O: 0320, G: 3150
P: 2212, O: 0320, G: 3150
Workshop Fees: Travel,
Registration and Entrance
Substitute Teachers
Printing
P: 2212, O: 0580, G: 3150
P: 2212, O: 0120, G: 3150
P: 2212, O: 0150, G: 3150
P: 2540, O: 0550, G: 3150
5,000
7,000
7,000
Other:
O: 0390, G: 3150
5,000
29,600
Sub-total of II.
B.
Provide details as to how funds will be used to: 1) sustain and align with
ongoing gifted programming(e.g., Director, identification testing, extended
learning options); and/or 2) support strategies for improving student
performance or program elements (Refer to the 12-16 program plan goals,
students achievement targets and/or UIP action plan)
5,600
Staffing for district GT Curriculum Facilitator and 3 50% Identification Specialists
Other (e.g.
Federal or
local grant)
66,000
Elementary GT Site Coordinator Stipends: $300 and Secondary GT Site
Coordinator Stipends: $800
Mileage, professional organizations
66,000
Guest speakers, JAVITS facilitators, SENG Facilitators
NAGC, Professional development gifted education specialists and teachers,
travel expenses for district and school personnel, William and Mary training
(summer 2013 and Fall 2013), Summer Institute materials,
Classroom teachers participating in professional development for gifted
Compensation for required trainings, collaboration for ALPs, GT Work Sessions
50,000
8,000
Books, materials for PD classes, materials for meetings, SENG materials
58,000
III. Activities associated with
instruction for gifted students
Contracted Services
P: 0070, O: 0320, G: 3150
P: 0070, O: 0150, G: 3150
5,000
mentors for aventa acceleration math students, costs of accelerated aventa
math courses
48
Fees for Content Extensions
Field Trips: Contracted
Field Trips: If District Provided
Transportation
Transportation - Rental of Buses
Printing
Other:
P: 0070, O: 0320, G: 3150
P: 0070, O: 0513, G: 3150
P: 0070, O: 0851, G: 3150
P: 0070 & O: 0444, G: 3150
P: 0070, O: 0550, G: 3150
P: 0070, O: 0390, G: 3150
73,000
78,000
P: 0070, O: 0610, G: 3150
51,000
51,000
P: 0070, O: 0735, G: 31050
P: 0070, O: 0735, G: 31050
5,000
Sub-total of III.
IV. Instructional Materials
Supplies & Materials
Sub-total of IV.
V. *Instructional Equipment
Non-Capital Equipment (not a
Fixed asset)
Equipment which is a Fixed Asset
Attach completed equipment
sheet to plan
Sub-total of V.
Total:
Grants to schools: 3000 for secondary and 800 for elementary. This money is
only spent on materials and professional development for gifted education at
the school site. Schools document how they spend their money and submit it to
the district for approval.
Identification materials – CogAT, Scoring, SIGS, Torrance, School Psychologist
Assessments
Technology needs and instructional equipment as needed to support district
work and needs of gifted education resource teachers and coordinators
5,000
241,000
124,000
** Contributing funds means local resources that support gifted
education. AUs/districts must provide evidence of supporting programs
receiving state funds.
49
Administrative Unit Application for Gifted Student Education Funds
Year Two: 2013-2014 – DUE April 30, 2013
Name of Administrative Unit and Region: North Central – Larimer R-1 Poudre School District
Section II: If a multiple district AU distributes funds directly to constituent districts, submit the budget pages from individual districts
attached to the AU budget describing the use of flow-through funds; or retain copies in the AU office for monitoring and desk reviews.
Section III: Contact Information
In the table below, provide contact information for Gifted Education resource people that the primary contact person wishes to include on the
AU’s contact list and a mailing list for announcements and memos. (Add lines to the table if needed.) Type NA in the first box if not
applicable.
G-Ed Contact
Title
E-Mail Address
Mailing
Person/s
Address/Phone #
Gifted and
[email protected] 2407 Laporte Ave Fort
Mary Nichols
Talented
Collins, CO 80521
Curriculum
970-490-3076
Facilitator
Dr. Todd Lambert
Director of
[email protected] 2407 Laporte Ave Fort
Curriculum,
Collins, CO 80521
Instruction
and
Assessment
Section IV: Double click the box to the left and chose "checked" in the default section if
your administrative unit will be submitting revisions to the AU’s early access addendum.
Attach the revised addendum.
Section V: Double click the box to the left and chose "checked" in the default section if the
administrative unit will be developing and submitting an early access addendum by January 1,
2014 for student funding in the 2013-2014 school year.
Section VI: Double click the box to the left and chose "checked" in the default section if
the administrative unit will be attaching revised advanced learning plans, handbooks or other
artifacts of choice to this application. Name of artifacts:
VII. Submission Directions
The administrative unit’s annual budget application is due April 30, 2013.
 In an e-mail, send the completed program plan document with budget page and other
documents as attachments to Tara Rolfe.
Organization Code: 1550 District Name: POUDRE R-1
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Districts (Version 5.3 -- Last Updated: December 30, 2013)
50
 Use the administrative unit’s name in the subject line of the e-mail.

Label attached document files according to the following examples, starting with the
name of the administrative unit:
File Name Examples:
DouglasCounty_BudgetReq_13-14
DouglasCounty_ALP_13-14
DouglasCounty_EarlyAccess_revised_2013
DouglasCounty_ParentHandbook_2013
E-mail the annual budget application to: Tara Rolfe, Program Assistant II,
[email protected]
 Mail the cover page with the signature of the superintendent or designee. Multiple
district administrative units: use the multiple-superintendent signature page.
CDE Mailing Address:
Colorado Department of Education
Office of Gifted Education
Denver, Colorado 80202
CDE Contact Persons:
Jacquelin Medina, Director,
Gifted Education
Colorado Department of
Education
Office of Gifted Education
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 866-6652
Fax: (303) 866-6767
Wendy Leader
Twice Exceptional Education
Tara Rolfe, Program
Assistant II
Gifted Education Regional Consultants (GERCs) are also available for
assistance in writing the annual request.
http://www.cde.state.co.us/gt/contactus.htm
Organization Code: 1550 District Name: POUDRE R-1
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Districts (Version 5.3 -- Last Updated: December 30, 2013)
51

Improvement Plan - Poudre School District

Transcription

Similar documents

Learn more!

with Susan Jackson

Devisri. K - Golden Research Thoughts

Attention Adult Amateurs! - Indiana Dressage Society

December 2015 - Mount Pleasant Area School District

Mikayla, Year 6 Brighton-le-Sands Public School Bracelet

LabDAQ® Laboratory Information System